RudeG_v2.0

iTrader: (1)

I don't have the need nor desire to do an in depth analysis of a bunch of JWT pdf docs. Nor will I be baited into doing so.

Needless to say, I think the credibility of any JWT publications should be taken with a grain of salt due to Jim's questionable integrity and business practices. go-fast already showed why by pointing out the fallacy of the "must use JWT springs" statement.

rcdash

iTrader: (18)

Rude, you seem so polarized against Jim Wolf. What's the inside scoop with him? Just because he promotes his own stuff doesn't make him evil. That's just natural, isn't it? I do think what he does publish is more in his own self interest than those of the community, but at least it's some data rather than just a product. GTM did some before/after testing and shared that. I didn't see anything at all published from BC but they undeniably ended up with high performance cams. Alberto's and Hal's cars are testaments to that.

Of course he did do business with Scott... (ok, disregard this last post, )

go-fast

you dont select a cam to fit the engine......you build the engine around the cam.this is why stocker cams have shown rediculous power (without the rpm range of course).think about the #'s from boosted stock cams and rightfully be in awe.we all know the rules: duration increases charge size and allows time to evacuate the chamber,but go overboard and dynamic pressures will go down as you drag fresh charge out with the waste,you bandaid this with an increased seperation angle that gives you more time between valve movements and BAM bottom end starts to go away while increasing ve up top.in effect you are just playing within a predetermined range,where do you want your power?

my attitude is to max out simple profile's before you try to go big,sometimes the extra 50hp on the dyno with a "big" cam isn't worth spit if driveability dissapears or mid-range.

i know i speak in generalizations but this info is gospel and applies to each cam manufacturers range of bumpsticks.so don't compare brands,compare how well a cam "does everything" with your combo (or similiar).

dissregard all i say if your goal is a dyno queen with "mega" numbers.if you actually drive your car.....less is usually more.(hint:trust the guy who suggests stock cams and ignore the guy with magic springs)

EDIT: torque curve...it's all about torque curve.when you find a cam that has a linear torque curve buy it,stock,aftermarket does not matter.this will be the most smiles per mile

ttg35fort

iTrader: (2)

I don't think the issue is about "magic springs", it's about springs whoes harmonic frequencies will not be counter-productive to a particular cam profile. JWT claims to have done the research and analysis concerning this, which is more that can be said for some of the other manufacturers.

When I started my first build, I was looking at Tomei cams. I actually had a Tomei distributor tell me NOT to use their valve springs because he had seen more spring failures with these than he was comfortable with.

go-fast

tomei was likely using china springs and he knew it,it is not a "harmonic" thing it's a qc, material issue.so jw uses quality springs,if you use other springs of quality they are going to be just as "harmonicaly balanced" hence the snicker, snicker

RudeG_v2.0

iTrader: (1)

I think that it has been mostly a matter of trial and error by most guys. Fortunately for new customers, most shops have accumulated the experience of those trials and errors through previous customers and shop builds. Which is why you should go with the cam that your shop recommends for your desired FI setup and power goals. They have the benefit of experience and have found cams that they prefer.

ttg35fort

iTrader: (2)

For as much as you bash JWT, and me for recommending their cams for certain applications, you can't even point out what is wrong or what you think is wrong their cams???

Do you mean that all of this bashing of JWT is solely because JWT did business with VRT and RA??? And bashing me because you can't understand my posts in the other thread that got too technical for you???

I'm done responding to you RudeG. You are a complete waste of time.

RudeG_v2.0

iTrader: (1)

BINGO!

Jim continued to do business with both VRT and RA well after the criminal wrong doings were exposed and brought to his attention NUMEROUS TIMES! He still does business with Scott to this day and let's him use the JWT facilities for tuning etc. even though Scott has been banned from every VQ related forum except Fresh Alloy.

Therefore, Jim has no credibility IMO. His technical pdf docs mean jack squat to me.

XKR

iTrader: (1)

I just came in here to take a look around and what do I find....People using the word VooDoo (TM)...which is Trademark by me

Not to mention the food fight going on

Raj and Go-fast.......did you not notice the (TM) next to the word VooDOO

RudeG_v2.0

iTrader: (1)

I never said they make bad cams or products. I said that I'm not convinced they are superior and gave my reasons for why I don't support their company... regardless of the merit of their product. And as I already told you... the fact that the top shops with the top high power builds use BC cams is good enough for me.

And NO... Even though I know you mean well... I don't value or appreciate your incessant hijacking of threads with speculation that is not backed up with real world experience concerning that part. When I recommend cams to someone, it's because I have seen dyno sheets and/or real world experience (ie customer reviews) with that cam; not some mathematical equation or company pdf document about how it should perform. Like I said before, I think you are muddying up threads with speculation and JWT sales garble. If you're butthurt by that, so be it.

Lasty, if you want to support a company that was and continues to be complacent in several years of criminal fraud that was conducted on members of our community, that is your prerogative.

RudeG_v2.0

iTrader: (1)

LOL That sounds very familiar to what I heard Jason Siebels tell me a while ago. He likes the stock VQ cams. He said something to the effect of... if you want more power or top end, use a bigger turbo instead of a bigger cam. However, the long block I purchased from another Intense customer already had Nismo R cams in it.

str8dum1

iTrader: (11)

^ ya and thats why stock cam cars make AWESOME power past 6500 rpms

RudeG_v2.0

iTrader: (1)

rcdash

iTrader: (18)

go-fast, thanks for the insights.

Mike, very sorry. All use of the trademarked word is hereby suspended until proper licensing is in place.

str8dum1

iTrader: (11)

LOL! i mean who wants mega power after spending 10 large on a built motor and another 10 large on tubro kit and accessories!

go-fast

it's sad to see you mock honesty,if you want someone to stroke your ego you shouldn't read my posts.usable power is the name of the game and to chase hp without consideration for the torque curve is the stuff of dum dum's.

what is the point of 700hpif you cant put it down for the first three gears?when you reach the hp limits of the chassis,you stop being productive,the car becomes a death trap,i liken it to a rocket powered skate board.who cares if it makes 2000hp if it's focus is so narrow it's unusable.

i'm not saying a 1000hp z is wrong,on the contrary the achievement should be commended,but is this a reasonable street car?no,but one helluva track car.my point is a 650hp z w/stock cams is enough to liquify the tires and a smallish aftermarket cam with a better curve is great too.but you are at the limits of the chassis and should consider your motivation for the quest for more with a dd.

if you want to **** your money on hp that has no ability to get you down the road faster have at it,you'll not impress me or anyone else that knows what the hell their talking about.make outstanding power with unsuspecting parts and click off some et's that make dyno queen's cry and you'll get my attention.

mike,sorry about the voodoo thing i'll contact lunati and inform them to cease and desist immediately.

ttg35fort

iTrader: (2)

As you now go-fast, it's a balance. Even with the C2 cams, my 305 Toyo R888s were breaking loose in 3rd gear when the turbos spooled up (granted, the camber was set up for road racing, I think around 2.5 deg. or so). In my particular situation, a cam with a little more overlap does two things, as you probably also know: it will lower the torque at that rpm, which should alleviate some of the wheel spin, and it will provide more torque in the higher rpms. Thus, there should be greater usable torque accross the entire rpm range. Had I been running cams with less overlap than the C2s, the wheel spin in 3rd gear may have been even worse, and I would have had less top end power. For my build, that would be very counter-productive.

Of course, this has to be balanced with the engine's displacement, the turbos that are being used, the intake plenum, and everything else in the build. For example, when I had the stock intake plenum with a Motordyne 5/16" spacer, 3rd gear held without wheel spin. When I switched to the Cosworth plenum, added a little boost, and re-tuned, things changed.

It is the search for the right balance that makes every bit of information we can get about the cams so important. That is why we should push BC and the other cam manufacturers to publish more information about their cams. Otherwise, it is a shot in the dark. Yes, there are other builds to use as a guide, but I don't know of any other build exactly like mine. That's why critical thought and analysis becomes important. You had previoiusly mentioned NASCAR builds. Can you imagine trying to compete in NASCAR and trying to find an advantage to exploit without having someone to work through the numbers? A lot of engineering goes into NASCAR, and every other top form of motorsports.

ttg35fort

iTrader: (2)

With regard to the "magic" valve spring comments, here is a video of an engine with the wrong valve springs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_REQ1...eature=related

This video is related to valve float. I wish I could find the video where it shows a valve spring with such a bad resonance that it actually breaks, but it doesn't appear to be available any more.

Is the solution always just to increase the spring rate? Perhaps that always works. Even if it does, is it the best solution? It seems to me that the best solution is a valve spring that is selected to match the cam it is working with, and one which has been tested with that cam. For this reason, I personally would not use JWT valve springs on BC stage 2 or 3 cams, nor would I use BC valve springs on JWT's bigger cams. Would the two be interchangable? Maybe, but I certainly would not want to be the first person to try it out.

go-fast

the first critical bit of info needed is jw doesn't have special harmonic springs.the second is cam card info is a loose description when it comes to identifying a cam.third but not least,motors should be built around a cam design,you can't just put a bigger cam in and expect it to work

i know what you are asking for and i told you 12 hrs ago,the only way to get the info you seek is to map YOUR cams personally.you will then have an acurate baseline and be able to use other datalogs to fine tune to a more desireable profile based on your motors individual needs.

i have been very accomodating to you especially considering this conversation opened with you telling me i don't know what i'm talking about.i put that aside and helped you anyway,but i'm concluding that you don't want to "get it" and am giving up.g'luck

there is no answer to "who makes the best cam",every app is different(even with similiar parts)

ttg35fort

iTrader: (2)

^^^

Actually, the conversation opened up with you telling me JW needs to be beaten over the head with the cams, or something along those lines.

Also, my questions were rhetorical.